mspaintadventuresfandomcom-20200224-history
Fandom talk:Fan Pesterchum
This is really getting kind of messy. Should we add some kind of organization to the list? 20:00, July 25, 2010 (UTC) : How about this: we split everything into four categories sorted by username. 0-9, A-H, I-P and Q-Z. Isoraķatheð 09:44, July 26, 2010 (UTC) Unnecessary Why is this page even necessary or even conducive to an encyclopedia for MSPA? This seems better suited for a fan website like the Trollslum Wiki or the Chumroll Wiki. Subrosian 04:49, April 23, 2011 (UTC) :MSPA Wiki is a fan website. It includes not only canon, but fanon, fan speculation, and community-based information. Most fans would expect this to be the logical place to look for fan chumhandle names, if not in a handy list, then by searching the Wiki for user pages containing the chumhandle. --TricksterWolf 18:08, November 30, 2011 (UTC) There appears to be many versions of pesterChum on the web, and unless I'm mistaken, it would seem hard for everyone on this list to be able to locate others to communicate with. On the same note, which version / "brand" of pesterChum is this? I personally use http://sburb.weebly.com/pesterchum.html . B. A. Beder (talk) 23:33, October 28, 2018 (UTC) real or not I've heard that there is a real life pesterchum so is this a page so that people can see your real pesterchum, or is it that all of these are fake and this page is basically nothing Flappinqs 22:02, January 25, 2012 (UTC) :Well, as far as I know, this is indeed meant to be a list of people's actual handles on pesterchum. It's impossible to be certain whether all of them are real, though. Suffice to say, if this page was completely pointless, it wouldn't still be here :So, these are real? 21:30, January 27, 2012 (UTC) :Yes. Why? experimentalDeity 21:31, January 27, 2012 (UTC) :I just deleted mine. I was going to put a pesterchum under that name, but I never understood how to finish downloading it. By the way, yes they are real. MaximusAwesomus 21:56, January 27, 2012 (UTC) :Got it finally! My pesterchum is not important, so yeah go ahead MaximusAwesomus 14:23, January 28, 2012 (UTC) The canon handles really ought to be stripped from this list, since they're open to everyone and have been for over a year. 13:05, February 13, 2012 (UTC) suprisingly no, there not open for everyone. Those people who made them are the only ones who can use them MaximusAwesomus 21:30, February 13, 2012 (UTC). Er, I don't know where you got that impression, Maximus. As above stated, they're open to everyone and have been for over a year. They are /regulated/, yes, but only to prevent any one person from "owning" the handle. -A Pesterchum Moderator 12:42, April 26, 2012 (UTC) The canon ones? No. There first come first serve. As for ones as jackNoir that is who ever is using it. But the personal ones are open to you and you only. Unless someone else logs in as you. Which happens occasionally. Ps sorry for the typos. Chezrush 19:16, April 26, 2012 (UTC) Just re read the rules. Though it says " 1. Canon handles are FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVE." I am going to go with you on this one and say its public, since you seem to be a mod on pesterchum. Chezrush 19:28, April 26, 2012 (UTC) By "FIRST-COME FIRST-SERVE", it means you can't reserve them and make them your personal handle; sharing is enforced, with a limit of six hours on a canonical handle per day (with the exception of ghostyTrickster and the Serious Business handles, those are unprotected) 22:46, April 26, 2012 (UTC) Next step: getting all of this alphabetically organized. Chezrush 01:24, May 11, 2012 (UTC) :That would be the most hilariously stupid waste of time imaginable. The table is sortable for a reason Names Okay, this has been bugging me for a while. Some handles are listed as belonging to ??? on the forum. Which I imagine is, at least in some cases, because users on the wiki don't necessarily also use the forum. Proposal to add a column for wiki usernames? I sign yes to this proposal. experimentalDeity 15:00, April 26, 2012 (UTC) Why not just change the "forum username" to "username" and you can put whatever you want, wiki forum or both? Save space. 10:06, April 29, 2012 (UTC) :It wouldn't exactly "save space", because the table is 100% width anyway, and a new column won't change the vertical height. If anything, it'll be making better use of the space, seeing as there are basically two kinds of row in the table: either one handle (lots of empty space in overwide cells) or a lot of handles* (many of which wrap onto two lines already, so narrowing them won't change much). And space on this page is hardly a commodity to worry about anyway, seeing as it's an ever-expanding list. :As to the suggestion in itself, I'm not sure it's a good idea. Seeing as the whole point of having both columns would be to make it easier to identify the names, making the column a haphazard mixture of forum and wiki names isn't entirely helpful : *Speaking of which, it is absolutely preposterous how many handles some people have. Seriously. I mean, yeah, I have three, but of those, one is obviously my main and the other two are, respectively, for fun Sollux roleplay and "proper" Doc Scratch roleplay. But all three have the same initials, SN. The worst offender is Timepainter – what possible reason is there for having eleven handles, all with different initials to boot? I'm not saying it's "wrong" to have so many, but it doesn't half make the table look untidy, and I'm mystified by anyone feeling the need to have that many. It's just bizarre. :EDIT: In fact, in order for the sortable columns to actually work meaningfully for anyone with multiple handles, we should really have every handle on its own row. Which given that it would mean usernames being on multiple rows (I'd love to use rowspan code but it breaks sortable tables horribly), lends itself to a limit on how many handles a user can have listed. I would suggest a limit of three, not because that's how many I have, but because it's a reasonably common number of multiple handles. Two is unsurprisingly more common than three, but I think three is a good balance of allowing variety without ridiculous excess :Another edit: Haven't split the handles onto separate rows yet, but here's the column restructure. We'd need to put a note in the sitenotice to tell people to add their wiki usernames, and after allowing people time to do so, we should probably delete all rows where both username columns are still ?s ::Okay, it's been six days, I've gone ahead and done the columns. Still open for discussion on limiting handles though Right. Next order of business, I'm going to bring the two remaining points back up. Limiting number of handles per user to three, and the question of whether to put every handle on a separate row. I'd rather not do the latter in a way, because it'll make the table much larger, but on the other hand, I've pointed out already that the chumhandle column being sortable simply doesn't work as it is now :For whatever my opinion's worth, I think the table should be limited to the user's main chumhandle, the one not used for RP or the like. I have multiple chumhandles I use on and off for RP, but here I just listed theUltamate, since it's my main one. :We have two options this way: :A) We just get rid of the superfluous handles entirely. If someone wants to RP with someone, hit them up via the main account and go from there. Sort of draconian and not a happy solution at all. :B) Make a separate column off to the far right for the extra handles. The columns would go something like this: Wiki Name | Forum Name | Main Handle | Main Initials | Extra Handles :With B, the RP Handles column still won't be easily alphabetized, but really, it's not that huge of a deal. Use Ctrl+F if you're looking for someone in particular, I guess. --TheUltamate 18:13, May 31, 2012 (UTC) Wiki names only? It's been a while. I'm starting to think that the table should only be for wiki users. Since, y'know, if you aren't on the wiki, why are you even adding your handle to a table that's on the wiki? If neither wiki nor forum name are included, the entry just gets deleted. If only forum name is included... why put it on this list rather than just mentioning it in your forum sig or something? This table has always been preposterously large, and of questionable usefulness, so really, anything that is a justifiable reduction of its size is going to be a good thing. Since it's on the wiki, it stands to reason that it'd be appropriate to limit its scope to the wiki. Thoughts? :I'm for that idea! Per Ankh ED 17:27, February 19, 2013 (UTC) :I think that's a smart idea. } 17:53, February 19, 2013 (UTC) :Agreed. 18:08, February 19, 2013 (UTC) :I'm fine with the idea, and lucky it is easily enforceable, just semi-protect the page so people without a wiki account can't add their handle. - The Light6 (talk) 23:16, February 19, 2013 (UTC) ::I'll just leave it another couple of days to see if anyone has any objection :For the record, I vote yay. But what about people with just a forum name? Yes or no? 02:19, February 22, 2013 (UTC) ::Well isn't that the point? The current rules require either a wiki account or a forum account, this rule change would make the wiki account part compulsory and the forum account part an optional addition. - The Light6 (talk) 02:29, February 22, 2013 (UTC) ::Oh, okay. I was under the impression there were a few people on the list with neither, and I thought we were directing it solely at them. nevermind, carry on. 02:39, February 22, 2013 (UTC)